reef_research
New member
This seems the appropriate forum to begin discussion on such a topic.
Keeping organisms of any kind within a domestic setting is one of the ultimate intellectual challenges. Not only does the owner of the creature have to provide the basic needs of the organism, but also must take countless steps to ensure the organism does not interfere negatively with either its owner or environment. These efforts require significant skill in both foresight and planning, which depends on an accurate assessment of the potential risk involved.
Because the majority of domestic animals behave in a fashion that is largely unpredictable (mimicking chaos for our purposes), creating a system to house and care for the animal largely depends on our ability to predict variations in the system. As the organisms require increasingly more complex systems to support them in a domestic setting, the complexity and points of error increase in the overall system. For example, a pet rock requires significantly less foresight and planning than a Burmese python. The capacity for error in the care of these pets also follows the same pattern. Infinitely more problems can occur when housing the python than would be found in a lesser system like that of the pet rock.
In terms of a system, the complexity is twofold. Primarily, the owner must procure the resources needed, and deliver them in the correct amount and at the correct intervals. Secondly, the owner must take preventative steps in the event that any point in the animal’s housing system fails. While this may well seem like common knowledge, there are some interesting conclusions that can be drawn from this realization.
The first of these is the mentally-taxing aspect of pet-keeping. Much like people play chess or assemble jigsaw puzzles, pet-keeping offers a similar (and more advanced) challenge. Proving that one has the capacity to care for a complex system (pet-keeping) is an excellent method of “exercising†the mind, and can provide valuable insights into the maintenance of other systems.
Additionally, the habit offers a scientific value as well, depending on the level of care required by the organism. For example, let us state that to predict and maintain a system, one must understand substantial portions of the system. Building on this assumption, let us also state that the system for pet care includes the environment in which the organism dwells. Based on these two conclusions, we can then say that to successfully maintain the organism, we must also understand significant portions of its environment.
Since a large percentage of organisms kept within domestic settings require conditions that mimic their natural environment in order to thrive, care of these organism requires an understanding of the environment from which they originated. However, in common domestic animals such as dogs and cats, this is less apparent. The species have been raised in domestic conditions for enough generations that their care does not reflect as much on their original environment. But for species that have not been domesticated, the challenge for understanding their environment is still quite relevant.
Let us demonstrate the concepts outlined above using an example. Since we know that the above benefits depend to a degree on the complexity of the care system for the organism, it would be useful to select an organism which requires a fairly complex support system in order to survive within the domestic setting. What sort of creature might require a complex system in order to survive within our homes? How about a coral reef ecosystem? This provides a suitable model because both the “organism†(which is a web of species that cannot be easily maintained when separated) and its life-support system are highly complex.
In order to validate the earlier conclusions, we must prove that maintaining our model “organism†( a coral reef ecosystem) is both a mentally taxing affair, in addition to requiring a significant understanding of the organism’s natural environment. Most reef keepers may readily agree with the former. The latter is slightly more difficult to demonstrate, though it is abundantly clear that the organism’s environment is significantly understood. Whatever progress and success that came about from keeping these complex systems came from a careful observation and understanding of their environment.
Therefore, because these principles have been demonstrated with a model organism, we can conclude that they may be accurate (at least for the model organism). If we assume they are correct, then we can also say that the pursuit towards keeping increasingly more “difficult†species within domestic settings will eventually yield a higher understanding of their environment.
Because of this, hobbyists and researchers alike should not be discouraged from attempting to maintain difficult species, as long as they demonstrate serious intent and the capacity to construct an appropriate maintenance system. As highly controversial as this conclusion may seem, it is still worth discussing as a legitimate concept.
Now, does this mean that every beginner should immediately go out and purchase that blue ribbon eel on their first try? Of course not. The idea only states that the serious pursuit of designing a care system for “difficult†organisms is a worthwhile endeavor.
Why would anyone post something this abstract? First, the forum acts debate stage where the weaknesses of an argument can be pointed out. Secondly, if the concept is correct, it serves as useful justification for the more contraversial parts of the hobby.
Keeping organisms of any kind within a domestic setting is one of the ultimate intellectual challenges. Not only does the owner of the creature have to provide the basic needs of the organism, but also must take countless steps to ensure the organism does not interfere negatively with either its owner or environment. These efforts require significant skill in both foresight and planning, which depends on an accurate assessment of the potential risk involved.
Because the majority of domestic animals behave in a fashion that is largely unpredictable (mimicking chaos for our purposes), creating a system to house and care for the animal largely depends on our ability to predict variations in the system. As the organisms require increasingly more complex systems to support them in a domestic setting, the complexity and points of error increase in the overall system. For example, a pet rock requires significantly less foresight and planning than a Burmese python. The capacity for error in the care of these pets also follows the same pattern. Infinitely more problems can occur when housing the python than would be found in a lesser system like that of the pet rock.
In terms of a system, the complexity is twofold. Primarily, the owner must procure the resources needed, and deliver them in the correct amount and at the correct intervals. Secondly, the owner must take preventative steps in the event that any point in the animal’s housing system fails. While this may well seem like common knowledge, there are some interesting conclusions that can be drawn from this realization.
The first of these is the mentally-taxing aspect of pet-keeping. Much like people play chess or assemble jigsaw puzzles, pet-keeping offers a similar (and more advanced) challenge. Proving that one has the capacity to care for a complex system (pet-keeping) is an excellent method of “exercising†the mind, and can provide valuable insights into the maintenance of other systems.
Additionally, the habit offers a scientific value as well, depending on the level of care required by the organism. For example, let us state that to predict and maintain a system, one must understand substantial portions of the system. Building on this assumption, let us also state that the system for pet care includes the environment in which the organism dwells. Based on these two conclusions, we can then say that to successfully maintain the organism, we must also understand significant portions of its environment.
Since a large percentage of organisms kept within domestic settings require conditions that mimic their natural environment in order to thrive, care of these organism requires an understanding of the environment from which they originated. However, in common domestic animals such as dogs and cats, this is less apparent. The species have been raised in domestic conditions for enough generations that their care does not reflect as much on their original environment. But for species that have not been domesticated, the challenge for understanding their environment is still quite relevant.
Let us demonstrate the concepts outlined above using an example. Since we know that the above benefits depend to a degree on the complexity of the care system for the organism, it would be useful to select an organism which requires a fairly complex support system in order to survive within the domestic setting. What sort of creature might require a complex system in order to survive within our homes? How about a coral reef ecosystem? This provides a suitable model because both the “organism†(which is a web of species that cannot be easily maintained when separated) and its life-support system are highly complex.
In order to validate the earlier conclusions, we must prove that maintaining our model “organism†( a coral reef ecosystem) is both a mentally taxing affair, in addition to requiring a significant understanding of the organism’s natural environment. Most reef keepers may readily agree with the former. The latter is slightly more difficult to demonstrate, though it is abundantly clear that the organism’s environment is significantly understood. Whatever progress and success that came about from keeping these complex systems came from a careful observation and understanding of their environment.
Therefore, because these principles have been demonstrated with a model organism, we can conclude that they may be accurate (at least for the model organism). If we assume they are correct, then we can also say that the pursuit towards keeping increasingly more “difficult†species within domestic settings will eventually yield a higher understanding of their environment.
Because of this, hobbyists and researchers alike should not be discouraged from attempting to maintain difficult species, as long as they demonstrate serious intent and the capacity to construct an appropriate maintenance system. As highly controversial as this conclusion may seem, it is still worth discussing as a legitimate concept.
Now, does this mean that every beginner should immediately go out and purchase that blue ribbon eel on their first try? Of course not. The idea only states that the serious pursuit of designing a care system for “difficult†organisms is a worthwhile endeavor.
Why would anyone post something this abstract? First, the forum acts debate stage where the weaknesses of an argument can be pointed out. Secondly, if the concept is correct, it serves as useful justification for the more contraversial parts of the hobby.
